Should developments comply with planning instruments? Site meeting 16/6/23

It seems an odd question to have to repeatedly consider but the proposed five-storey, twin-block development at 114-120 Cary Street, next to McDonalds,  is having a Land & Environment Court on-site reconciliation meeting at 10.30 am Friday 16 June to explore that very question.

Following a detailed assessment, in the absence of any additional information, Council has recommended refusal for this proposal (DA 1651/2022) .  A total of 97 submissions, comprising 66 objections and 31 in favour, were received. Given the capital value of the proposal, the Hunter & Central Coast Panel (HCCP) became the consent authority. The HCCP has also determined to refuse the application. Key concerns include bulk & scale, traffic & safety, insufficient grounds to use clause 4.6 (exception to development standards) and potential for impacts of the adjacent wetland. The applicant decided not to respond to Council's requests for further information and instead appealed the matter to the Land & Environment Court. 

Please try to attend this meeting to demonstrate the community's interest in this proposal. A show of significant community support for appropriate and compliant development over the maximisation of profit would greatly assist the court in understanding the community’s concerns. 

DA/1651/2022 114-120 Cary Street

 

STOP PRESS : EXTENSION GRANTED TILL 15 SEPTEMBER 

Members of the TAG team have been reviewing some of the documentation of this NEW development and are encouraging community members to submit any concerns they may have.

Whilst this is a new development many of the issues from the previous DA may still be relevant and your previous submission may only need a little tweaking.

5-storey DA resubmitted for Cary St./Arnott St./Victory Pde Block

The developer Toronto Investments No. 1 Pty Ltd has submitted a new DA for a $36 million mixed-use complex for the long-vacant block at 114-120 Cary St between McDonalds and Victory Parade and backing onto Arnott Street behind the Yacht Club.

According to ASIC, Toronto Investments is a $1 company fully owned by Coveston Developments Pty Ltd and is represented as sole Director and Secretary by Mr. Nicholas Vranas of Summer Hill, Sydney.

In some minor respects it is an improvement over the previous DA that was refused by the Hunter & Central Coast Regional Planning Panel in December 2019 and then withdrawn by the applicant when appealing against the Hunter & Central Coast Regional Planning Panel, entitling the developer to then re-submit the application.

Despite reduction from 6 to 5 stories, the proposed maximum height along Cary Street is much the same (20.34m versus 20.6m). The number of units is reduced from 120 to 108 (fewer one-bedroom units) and commercial space from 2,872 to 929 sq. m. There is also larger communal rooftop space. There is now a detailed ecology report as well as other reports. 

Nevertheless, in its main features, the proposal is still non-compliant with the town planning instruments. It is still higher than the 4-stories allowable under the Toronto Town Centre Area Plan. Although visual impact diagrams and photos have been blurred, dulled and redacted for public consumption on the Application tracking website. It is apparent that the developer wants to sell profitable penthouse apartments with lake views, which means they will also be intrusive when seen from the foreshore and lake.  

The complex also has a heavy footprint, occupying almost the entire site. As aerial views show, it will become a massive block between the Toronto Foreshore and the Toronto Wetlands and Fassifern corridor. When Council is at last making progress with the Foreshore Masterplan and seeking to develop active cycling, walking and leisure activity, this makes no strategic sense. Toronto is bulging and needs more open space, not narrowing the Greenway into a bookended laneway.

The 2-level basement carpark will be a massive and disruptive excavation. From submitted reports, there appears to be some uncertainty about predicted changes on water levels in the Toronto wetlands.  Its construction will certainly bring a lot more big trucks into an already congested area. 

Residents are already particularly concerned about traffic. Here the new DA offers no relief but the proponent’s consultants maintain, on the basis of a one-day traffic count, that the peak hour flow is satisfactory and that the extra traffic can be accommodated at the Bay Street lights and without impact on safety around the Public School. Heavy vehicle access will no longer be allowed, but of course that means more medium-size truck movements. 

All round, there is plenty of scope for a scaled-back development more in harmony with this strategic part of our townscape. Since the developer would have bought the consolidated 6183 sq. m. site in March 2016 at well below present market value so it would seem that fitting in with the community expectations would be possible.

DA/1651/2022 can be viewed on the Council website at https://property.lakemac.com.au/ePathway/Production/Web/GeneralEnquiry/EnquiryDetailView.aspx?Id=1618723. Scroll down to access the many documents relating to the DA. The Architectural Plan gives a good overview. 

The submission period for community feedback on the DA has been extended by one week to Tuesday 23 August, but will close before you receive this edition of The Chronicle in your letterbox. 

Address your submission to 

Subject:  DA/1651/2022 - 114-120 Cary St

council@lakemac.nsw.gov.au

and/or 

Chief Executive Officer

Lake Macquarie City Council

Box 1906

HRMC NSW 2310

Here's a list of councillors too

Additional issues

Toronto Wetlands 

Toronto Wetlands: A large part of the proposed development site is located within land designated as being “in proximity to a coastal wetland”.  Clause 2.8 of the SEPP (Resilience and Hazards) 2021 provides that the consent authority must be satisfied that the proposed development will not significantly impact on the adjoining wetland.  The accompanying report by CMW Geosciences fails to give this confidence. 

With respect, modelling programs are used extensively but the accuracy of the output is dependent on having data input of detailed site-specific parameters, which the authors of the CMW report state was limited and results are therefore only indicative.

Traffic

The additional vehicles which would access the Arnott Street, Bay Street and Renwick St areas from the proposed development would compound an already dangerous situation, with 200 extra cars from the proposed development regularly entering and exiting their parking facilities.  

Additionally the vehicles of clients to the proposed business premises on the ground floor, the service vehicles and supply vehicles arriving and departing regularly – all would add a significant risk to safety and add traffic congestion.  

Peak times for egress and ingress of the building would correspond with the peak times for school arrivals and departures and also with busy times at McDonalds.

A Comparison of the 2022 DA and the 2018 DA 

2018 Site Layout

2022 Site Layout

DA's In Play 16/6/22 to 22/7/22

114-120 Cary Street is back

The Statement of Environmental Effects p4 says “The development will comprise of a five storey shop top housing block fronting Cary Street and a five storey residential flat block fronting Arnott Avenue. Communal open space will be located at roof level of both blocks

Overall, the development will contain 929m2 of commercial floor space, 108 apartments and 208 car spaces located over two levels of basement. Vehicular access (ingress and egress) is provided from Arnott Avenue.”

Image: Perspective from Victory Parade- p10 Architectural Plans.
Mark Lawler Architects.

DAs In Play 16/6/22 to 22/7/22

The CPPA endeavours to provide a summary of active applications in our area as outlined in the table.

Please consult LMCC’s website for a full listing: 

• DA = Development Application
• BC = Building Information Certificate
• TA = Tree Assessment
• CC = Construction Certificate
• CDC = Complying
• Development Certificate
• REF = Review Environmental Factors
• SC = Subdivision Certificate.
• MU = Mixed use
• RFB = Residential flat Building

DA’s In Play at December 2019

It’s that time of year when major developments are submitted for community comment just as everyone is winding down for the year…and there are some big ones on display at Carey Bay. If you want to do some community giving, a final letter for the year to your local representatives whose decisions shape our community would be a substantial gift. Please consult Council's Application Tracking website for details.

Here's a list of Councillor contacts

DA/419/2018 114-120 Cary Street -124 Dwellings

Invitations have gone out to give interested people the opportunity to talk directly to the Hunter and Central Coast Regional Planning Panel on the proposed 6-story development at 114-120 Cary Street, Toronto (next to Maccas). The event is 11/12/19 at 4pm in the Council Chambers.

You must register to speak by contacting the Planning Panels Secretariat before 4pm Monday 9 December 2019 on 02 8217 2060 or enquiry@planningpanels.nsw.gov.au 

The mixed-use development includes a Residential Flat Building with 124 dwellings above 2872m2 commercial premises and two levels of basement carparking. The proponent has committed to additional off-site works including road widening of Arnott Ave, a cycleway and relocation of power lines.

DA/1692/209 Residential Care Facility & Demolition – 36 Laycock Street

Anglican Care has lodged their DA to demolish the Aged Care Facility (not the self-contained units) and rebuild on the existing footprint whilst retaining the mature corridor of trees on their southern boundary.

The design seeks to minimise the building bulk, cut and fill by breaking up the overall mass into four ‘wings’ radiating from central common facilities, and placing lower ground level parking under the northern and north western wings. Two care levels are provided over a parking level.

Some of the features are; 126 private rooms with ensuites, common areas (lounge, dining, activities rooms etc), day therapy areas (gym, salon, prayer room, treatment room etc), semi-basement car parking consisting 56 spaces, 15 at grade car parking spaces, café, entry / administration area (including new reception, offices, meeting rooms amenities etc).

DA/1865/2017 22 dwellings- 20 Laycock Street

The proposal to construct 22 units at 20 Laycock (behind the Carey Bay preschool) has

been revised and is on display till 15th December for community feedback. 

A letter has been drafted and is available for download and personalisation to assist the community to comment during this busy period.

The re-notification addresses the following issues: stormwater management so as not to burden the preschool with the site’s drainage, the retention of a tree corridor to support the movement of local wildlife and foraging habitat, targeted flora surveys to determine if threatened species were present, privacy impacts of adjacent residents and preschool, non-discriminatory accessibility, the visual impact on the community, parking and service area design, waste management plans and erosion & sediment control.

This DA is being put forward for the purposes of selling the land with an approved DA.

Although some revisions have been made from the previous application, there are several issues outstanding that conflict with community expectations at the apparent expense of financial considerations. A development such as this can be better designed so as to provide more green space, shared facilities and sustainable technologies even if the number of proposed units is reduced and their positioning modified.

Following are some of the concerns with the revised plans.

Retention of Corridor: Council officers state there is a need for a 8-10m wide corridor to provide security into the future and functionality and for foraging resources for a number of fauna species. The developer is proposing 2-5m. Only 7 trees of the 72 originally on the block are proposed to be left (many were taken out previously). Climate change elevates the importance of retaining habitat connectivity across the landscape for wildlife and avoid genetic inbreeding associated with isolated populations, the latter which also affects plants.

Privacy and topography: Council’s Landscape Assessment identifies units adjacent to the preschool being 2m above existing ground level with fencing providing no privacy and the site planning not responding to the topography of the site. Council is also recommending 1m wide landscaping along the access driveway to reduce the amenity impacts on the preschool.

Preschool safety: The developer states that the safety of children in the adjacent childcare centre is ‘of much less concern than many such situations’ such as heavy traffic in inner city commercial business districts. However, good planning should address such issues in advance and recognise their importance for the local community.

Visual Impact and community character: The developer describes the visual impact of the development as being consistent with ‘the emerging density character of the area’. However, there is only a small pocket of medium density zoning in Carey Bay. The one development, with minimal landscaping, adjacent to the shops does not constitute a trend and has not softened in the decade since completion. The area surrounding the development is low density housing on large bushland blocks, reinforcing the desirability of maintaining corridors.

Accessible units: The developer has designed ‘round-about’ style accommodation for their two accessible units located in the centre of the complex encircled by the internal access road, a poor design element for those with mobility challenges, a consequence of too many units being proposed for the site.

Energy Efficiency: The proposal only meets minimum energy efficiency requirements. More thoughtful design with perhaps little extra cost should be considered to incorporate best practice for sustainability, e.g. insulation for reduced heating and cooling and PV installation.

Bulk Scale and Size: An important outcome sought from such a medium density is also to ‘maintain and enhance the residential amenity and character of the surrounding area’. The bulk, scale and size of the current DA does not allow for this important consideration with no community space, very little green space and mostly hard surfaces.

What’s happening at Bath Street?

On 25 November Councillor Harrison formally requested an update on the actions taken and planned for the Bath St site, following the decision to defer further work on the multistorey development. All we want for Christmas is an update and a timeline to alleviate cynicism.